I don't know if these are the kinds of things you are looking for, but here are a few examples of techniques I have used to beef up the tone.

#1 - Add a hard-sync'd sine wave (essentially replicating the existing fundamentals in the main oscs) into the audio patch after the filter but before the VCA. Check out the level control in the green mixer.

#2 - Similar effect, but uses a second filter tuned to the fundamental, with 100% keyboard tracking so it always passes lots of fundamental and few other harmonics.

#3 - Similar to #1, but uses a sine osc tuned an octave lower than the main oscs for a true sub-octave effect. Note the hard sync to keep the main osc in phase with it (otherwise you can get random phase relations every time you load the patch).

#4 - adds a second trick: the static shapers. These modules can sound like distortion modules when applied to complex signals like a filter output, but when applied to simple individual saw oscs they curve the shape of the ramp and boost the lower harmonics. Some analog synths have saw waves that look a lot like this.

On the reptile brain issue: such theories have a bit too much popular psycho-biology content for me buying them without a doubt. There are many possible alternative theories that could be thought of but since sex-linked theories are inherently 'sexy', they seem to appeal to many people. Must be a freudian inheritance.

Oh, yes! Aside from sex, violence works especially well as well. Actually things that trigger a "fight or flee" reaction work faster then the "sex" ones. Screams of pain, distressed birds and so on are all great.

Also great is spatialising a sound like it's behind you and moving towards you.

Crying babies is also un-nerving but not as bad as those because babies can be left to cry for a few minutes while ignoring a threat of violence for that period tends to get you injured or worse._________________Kassen

Short explanation: Pretty much every musical sound in the natural world is comprised of one frequency (say if you're pressing A above middle C on a piano, 440hz), and then a bunch of other simultaneous frequencies above it. These frequencies are generally subtle, while the bottom/main/'fundamental' frequency is heard as the overall pitch of the note, but the higher frequencies alter the timbre (character) of the sound.

He's asking about adding harmonics (overtones) that lie under (lower pitch [than]) the fundamental (main note), which really makes no sense.
Obviously he wants to beef up the sound somehow, which of course is a reasonable desire. But the way he's phrasing his question makes no scientific sense.

Well, no, indeed, a frequency below it all isn't a "harmonic" at all. I don't think the issue is realy in a a lack of understanding of the way physics work (there are many things that are regularly done in electronic music that blatantly ignore physics) but in a lack of good terminology to talk about sound.

It should be added though; if you manage to add a frequency a octave below the fundamental of a sound (for example by using a clock-devider) this *can* sound quite natural if done properly. Many multi-effects aimed at guitar and bass have such a effect.

The method employed here may not occur in nature but the end-result might well come across like sounds that do occur in nature._________________Kassen

Had I actually asked how to add harmonics under the fundamental frequency, then I would agree that that would not have made sense, as harmonics (and overtones) have greater frequencies than their connected fundamental frquencies. If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that the word 'harmonics' does not appear (except in your mind)...

sheridan wrote:

How can I add 'some' extra frequencies BELOW the sound's fundamental frequency?

Maybe the description I gave was not clear enough and if not I apologise, but it seems that most people understood... it seems quite clear to me.

sheridan wrote:

I just need to thicken the sound somehow.

Maybe I should have said 'I just need to thicken the lower frequencies of the sound somehow'.

Still haven't had time to check out these suggestions, but am looking forward to it. _________________ Sheridan

There's no need to defend yourself, S, I was lamenting the lack of proper words to describe sound in natural language, not critisising your attempts to get around this.

I quoted "harmonics" from the threat's topic. Strictly speaking it's wrong, but what else are you to do? When discussing things like pulselet synthesis I'll talk about sounds with "two fundamentals" as well. Makes no sense, realy, but what options are there, short of invening new words?_________________Kassen

Ah, ok. Well, it can't hurt to pay some atention to the rather limited vocabulary that we have. Most of the words that we do have like "brightness" and "tonal collour" or even "pallete" are borowed straight from visual terminology...._________________Kassen

Had I actually asked how to add harmonics under the fundamental frequency, then I would agree that that would not have made sense, as harmonics (and overtones) have greater frequencies than their connected fundamental frquencies. If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that the word 'harmonics' does not appear (except in your mind)...

sheridan wrote:

How can I add 'some' extra frequencies BELOW the sound's fundamental frequency?

Sheridan, did you post a link to some soundclips? I´d like to examine what we really are talking about here.

That said, Dave Peck´s suggestions are cool, but since we probably are still talking about music here, I´d like to listen to the music, then consider your problem.. and then see if I can come up with suggestions._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

Considdering your awe-inspirering grasp of semantics I look forward to seeing some code by you to solve the problem at hand.

I look forward to people not distorting the truth to defend themself.

To clarify, in my first post, I was talking to bachus, who didn't understand what the O.P. was saying. I was not insulting anyone; merely speaking truth.

And in my second post, I was taken aback by the audacity to accuse his THREAD TITLE of only existing in my mind.

P.S. While "Considdering your awe-inspirering grasp of semantics I look forward to seeing some code by you to solve the problem at hand." may sound "cool" as a supposed 'burn,' it is a logical fallacy and argumentative no-no.

Obviously the topic title is still: "How to add harmonics BELOW the fundamental frequency?"

However, Sheridan does kinda try to restate what is his problem in his post, and this time "How to add harmonics BELOW the fundamental frequency?" is not quite what he is asking for._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

Wonderfull. Now that the meaning of words like "harmonics" "sub-harmonics", "overtones" and "fundamental" are perfectly clear to all involved I imagine you'll share some thoughts on the actual topic with us?_________________Kassen

i often add subharmonics to beef up tones. one way is to add the subs and then compress-it kind of "distresses" the original tone in a way that gives it power._________________Astroid Power-Up!: "googleplex" available at:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/googleplex

Astroid; That's a good trick. More generally; whenever I add something to a tone, for example a gated reverb or a sub-harmonic I tend to take the whole thing (original plus aditions) through some other effect in order to blend the two closer together. Compression is good, so is nearly any effect or even a EQ on very mild settings._________________Kassen

This is an interesting question. Traditionally this "thickening" would be done by using several instruments. Consider how parts for a double bass, the cellos etc. will thicken and widen the sound of "strings".

Try to listen to stuff like Pergolesi´s Stabat Mater and Mozart´s Requiem. try to figure out why it sounds the way it sounds. Even if you cannot quite completely place each instrument and voice hidden in there, I´m still sure you will get the main concepts really fast.

Mahler as well as Wagner would be next I think.
As for detailing tricks and the unexpected and interesting.. in a modern way of sorts.. try the Soldier´s Story ( Stravinsky ). You may want to listen to Wagner again after Stravinsky. Interesting stuff.

i really like Ravel's orchestration. Gershwin asked him for lessons on orchestration. then again, Ravel's response was to ask him how much Gershwin earnt from his last commission.

maybe you should be listening to Gershwin..._________________there's no I in TEAM, so let's all act as individuals instead

This wont help for use in the G2, but to perhaps clarify.
In Absynth you can do this in the Harmonic Spectrum mode by adding them where you like. This also goes for use with advanced FFT tools.

Excerpt from Absynth manual 'The Wave Display Area in Spectrum View displays the edited waveforms’ first 64 harmonics. The top half of the display shows the harmonics’ amplitude, the lower half their phase. At the bottom of the window you can see – depending on the mouse position – the harmonic’s number as well as its amplitude and phase. Harmonics above the 64th will be retained, although they can not be accessed in Spectrum View.
Hint: Some might think that a harmonic’s phase is not perceptible, but this is incorrect. Although the phase is less audible then the amplitude, a change of a harmonic’s phase with a complex waveform can be clearly noticed in the sound..'

Whoa, it's all been going off here in my absence. I've upgraded my pc, but it kind of went a bit wrong... RAID, thermal paste and the like... not been online for a while.

It's funny really... didn't spot my own title. Apologies all round.

My studio OS still hasn't been installed yet, so I'm sorry, but still no audio examples. This has turned out to be quite an interesting post. Lots of interesting things to try and friendly banter. _________________ Sheridan

I read somewhere that a vibrating speaker cone can sometimes add subharmonics. Maybe this is why miking a synth through an amp and speaker is/was popular.

Well, yes.. but in the case of bass there will be artifacts.. which can be quite cool. Anyways, recording off loudspeakers is a huge field and great fun. I do this a lot still. If you need a mellotron or an MS.20 style sound coming out of a Randall paper coned amp thingie.. then there is nothing like the real thing._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.